Constitution Daily » » 18th Amendmenthttp://blog.constitutioncenter.org
Smart conversation from the National Constitution CenterFri, 09 Dec 2016 12:06:03 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.10Five interesting facts about Prohibition’s end in 1933http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/12/five-interesting-facts-about-prohibition%e2%80%99s-end-in-1933/
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/12/five-interesting-facts-about-prohibition%e2%80%99s-end-in-1933/#respondMon, 05 Dec 2016 10:15:19 +0000http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=20235On December 5, 1933, three states voted to repeal Prohibition, putting the ratification of the 21st Amendment into place. But did Prohibition really end on that fateful day?

Kind of, but like the 18th Amendment’s path in 1919, the end of federal laws to bar the manufacture, transportation, and sale of intoxicating liquors took some time to wind down.

Congress first proposed the 21st Amendment in February 1933, and it took the unusual method of calling for state conventions to vote on the amendment, instead of submitting it to state legislatures. Conventions in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Utah approved the amendment on that fateful December day, making it 36 states who wanted Prohibition to end—the three-quarters majority required by the Constitution.

But the 21st Amendment returned the control of liquor laws back to the states, who could legally bar alcohol sales across an entire state, or let towns and counties decide to stay “wet” or “dry.”

Here are five interesting facts about the slow demise of Prohibition:

1. Two states rejected the 21st amendment. North Carolina and South Carolina rejected the amendment before December 5. So the vote was far from unanimous.

2. Another eight states didn’t meet before December 5 and didn’t even act to vote on the 21st Amendment: Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota

3. One state didn’t end its version of Prohibition until 1966. Mississippi decided the keep its Prohibition laws for another three decades. As of 2004, half of Mississippi’s counties were dry. Currently, 17 states don’t allow any of their counties to be dry.

4. It was never illegal to drink during Prohibition. The 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act, the legal measure that included the instructions for enforcing Prohibition, never barred the consumption of alcohol–just making it, selling it, and shipping it for mass production (and consumption).

5. The Cullen-Harrison Act, signed about 10 months before the 21st Amendment was ratified, allowed people to drink low-alcohol content beer and wine. Incoming President Franklin D. Roosevelt had the Volstead Act amended in April 1933 to allow people to have a beer, or two, while they waited for the 21st Amendment to be ratified. The first team of Budweiser Clydesdales was sent to the White House to give President Roosevelt a ceremonial case of beer.

]]>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/12/five-interesting-facts-about-prohibition%e2%80%99s-end-in-1933/feed/0Olmstead case was a watershed for Supreme Courthttp://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/06/olmstead-case-was-a-watershed-for-supreme-court/
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/06/olmstead-case-was-a-watershed-for-supreme-court/#commentsSat, 04 Jun 2016 08:00:19 +0000http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=15329Today marks the 88th anniversary of the landmark Olmstead v. United States wiretapping case decided by the Supreme Court, which had a far-reaching impact still felt today.

The decision centered on the ability of federal investigators to wiretap private conversations without judicial approval, and the ability to use evidence from these intrusions in court.

Roy Olmstead was a lieutenant on the Seattle police force who like other officers, had a side job. In his case, Olmstead’s part-time job was as the most successful bootlegger in the Pacific Northwest during Prohibition.

And it wasn’t a small-scale operation. Olmstead brought in millions of dollars each year using a combination of modern-office management and his connections within the police force.

Olmstead’s empire was ferreted out by a federal investigation that became a landmark in the annals of American law. A team spent months listening and noting his business calls, using a wiretapping system outside of his offices.

After his conviction, Olmstead’s appeal made it to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the wiretapping act was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights relating to unreasonable search and seizure

In a 5-4 verdict, the Supreme Court decided on June 4, 1928 that the unapproved wiretapping was permissible. Speaking for the majority, Chief Justice William Howard Taft said private telephone communications were no different from casual conversations overheard in a public place.

That decision was overturned in 1967 in Katz v. The United States, which made wiretapping by state and federal investigators subject to warrant requirements.

The more-enduring law was made by Justice Louis D. Brandeis’s dissent in Olmstead. Brandeis said the since wiretapping was illegal in the state of Washington, it was illegal when done by federal authorities outside of the legal guidelines.

In his statement, Brandeis also articulated a constitutional “right to be let alone” – words invoked by the majority nearly half a century later in Roe v. Wade.

After losing his appeal, Olmstead did a few years in prison, was later pardoned, and spent part of his remaining years as a Christian Science practitioner, working on programs about alcohol abstinence.

]]>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/06/olmstead-case-was-a-watershed-for-supreme-court/feed/1The constitutional origins of National Beer Dayhttp://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/04/the-constitutional-origins-of-national-beer-day/
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/04/the-constitutional-origins-of-national-beer-day/#respondThu, 07 Apr 2016 09:45:20 +0000http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/?p=38106April 7 is a day celebrated nationally by beer lovers as a big anniversary near the end of Prohibition in 1933, when legal beer sales returned in the United States for the first time in 13 years.

Prohibition was one of the great constitutional experiments of the 20th century. Between 1919, when the 18th Amendment banned the sale, making and transportation of booze, and late 1933, when the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, Americans found lots of ways to keep drinking with the help of a few unsavory friends and some resourceful home brewing techniques.

With the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in November 1932, Prohibition was dealt a fatal blow. The new Congress made it a priority to repeal anti-alcohol statutes, but even at a fast pace, it would take months to draft a constitutional amendment to cover all intoxicating spirits.

The Roosevelt administration was faced by a thirsty American public that also faced a crippling Depression. So as a compromise or interim solution, the President and Congress found a way to bring beer and wine back until the 21st Amendment could legalize all forms of booze.

Roosevelt signed the Cullen-Harrison Act on March 22, 1933. It amended the much-hated Volstead Act of 1919, which was the act of Congress that enabled the 18th Amendment and Prohibition. Back in 1919, some of the politicians who voted for Prohibition assumed that beer and wine sales wouldn’t be banned – just hard liquors – until Prohibitionists used the Volstead Act to broaden the booze ban.

The Cullen-Harrison Act allowed people to buy and drink low-alcohol content beer and wine in public, but it didn’t go into effect until April 7.

On that fateful day, large headlines in newspapers across the nation said the beer was back as the taps opened in 19 states. In St. Louis, the Budweiser Clydesdales made their first public appearance as they pulled a beer wagon through the city.

In Washington, the owner of the Abner-Drury Brewery ordered a guarded truck to depart at 12:01 a.m. for the White House, with two cases of beer for President Roosevelt. The shipment arrived along with a local press contingent, only to discover that Roosevelt was asleep. The Marine who was guarding the beer opened the first symbolic beer bottle and drank it so that the press could get photographs. Later, the President sent the beer cases to the National Press Club.

In Chicago, an estimated $5 million in beer sales happened on April 7, 1933. There were few reports of arrests. In Hollywood, actress Jean Harlow christened a beer delivery truck.

The Cullen-Harrison Act didn’t have a long lifespan. It was voided when Utah became the 36th state to ratify the 21st Amendment in December 1933.

]]>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/04/the-constitutional-origins-of-national-beer-day/feed/0Obama not the only beer-loving president in historyhttp://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/04/obama-not-the-only-beer-loving-president-in-history/
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/04/obama-not-the-only-beer-loving-president-in-history/#respondThu, 07 Apr 2016 09:00:39 +0000http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=18117What does Barack Obama have in common with George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson? All four presidents will go down in history as loving their beer, as well as their country.

The current president released the two recipes for the White House’s top-secret beer brews in 2012, after a citizen filed a Freedom of Information Act request.

Obama has been serving its own home brew since he took office in 2009 and the White House used honey from beehives managed by Michelle Obama on the South Lawn.

That would definitely be approved by George Washington, who had a well-known love for porter, which he kept in strong supply at Mount Vernon.

Historians have also unearthed one of Washington’s personal home brew recipes. The New York Public Library has his 1757 recipe for small beer (a type of light ale like a near beer) in Washington’s own handwriting.

Thomas Jefferson got into making beer in a big way after he left the White House in 1809. Jefferson took beer making at Monticello seriously. By 1814, he had his own personal brew house.

But James Madison takes the title of the patron of home brewing among the Founding Fathers. Madison wanted to form a national beer brewery in 1809 and appoint a Secretary of Beer to the presidential cabinet. Congress didn’t agree with the plan.

Madison’s goals weren’t entirely altruistic. Popular ales and other liquors were being imported into the United States, and Madison sought to protect the domestic beer market by placing tariffs on the imports.

If any president rivals Madison as a patriotic symbol for beer makers and beer drinkers, it has to be Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Roosevelt signed the laws that ended Prohibition in 1933. The Cullen-Harrison Act was the first effort to get around the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act, by legalizing some beers and wines on April 7, 1933. The passage of the 21st Amendment on December 5, 1933 fully repealed Prohibition.

But it took another president, Jimmy Carter, along with Congress, to make home brewing legal again in 1979. Carter wasn’t a big drinker, but his brother, Billy, had his own line of beer.

Presidents also understood the importance of beer on the campaign trail.

Here’s an Abraham Lincoln quote that could still be true today: “If given the truth, [the people] can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts—and beer.”

Ronald Reagan used a quick trip to a Boston-area pub in 1983 to re-connect with voters, when he sat down and had a beer with a few Democrats at the Eire Pub. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library has a replica beer pub based on the one he patronized during a presidential trip to Ireland.

]]>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/04/obama-not-the-only-beer-loving-president-in-history/feed/0Happy birthday (kind of) to the 18th Amendment!http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/01/happy-birthday-kind-of-to-the-18th-amendment/
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/01/happy-birthday-kind-of-to-the-18th-amendment/#respondSat, 16 Jan 2016 11:06:43 +0000http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/?p=30748It was on this day in 1919 that the Constitution gained a new amendment. However, the 18th Amendment, which made Prohibition the law of the land, had a short shelf life, since it was repealed in the early 1930s.

Indeed, the 18th Amendment became the first–and so far, only–constitutional amendment to be repealed in its entirety.

After 13 years of Prohibition, America had had enough of its “noble experiment” in banning the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating spirits. Enforcement of the ban had failed. Plus, the potential for revenues from taxes on alcohol and for new jobs in a revived alcohol industry received heightened interest with the onset of the Great Depression.

But on January 16, 1919, the “Drys” were celebrating a hard-fought victory in a battle that started in the middle of the prior century.

On that day, Nebraska became the 36th of the 48 states needed to ratify the 18th Amendment.

The Drys were a coalition of interest groups who wanted booze banned as a sacred cause. The Drys included religious groups, the Suffragettes, and other people. The key leader of the Drys was Wayne Wheeler, who led the grassroots movement through the Anti-Saloon League. Carry Nation was another prominent Dry.

Officially, Prohibition started in 1920 with the Volstead Act and ended in 1933, but it was more than a century in the making, and parts of it are still with us today.

Technically, the 18th Amendment made it illegal to manufacture, sell or transport “intoxicating beverages.” It was never illegal to consume alcohol.

As the Drys fought to ban booze, a key step was the imposition of a national income tax, to replace taxes on liquor sales. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913, providing a clear path to Prohibition. Somehow, after Prohibition was repealed, the government forgot to repeal the income tax!

Another constitutional part of the Prohibition battle was the 19th Amendment. This amendment gave women the vote. The Suffragette movement had close ties to the Temperance movement, and women were able to vote on a national level starting in 1920.

The end of Prohibition came with its repeal via the 21st Amendment in 1933. It allowed states to control their own liquor laws and it is the only Amendment ever approved using state conventions as part of the process.

During the Roaring 20s and the Prohibition period, the sale of illegal intoxicating spirits was a huge boom to organized, and unorganized crime. Figures like Al Capone, Owney Madden, Meyer Lansky and Lucky Luciano made headlines, as did the exploits of moonshiners and rum runners.

But there 18th Amendment haters, known as the anti-Prohibitionists, or the Wets, who wanted Prohibition out of the Constitution.

They finally got their way in 1933. Brewers were in the anti-Prohibitionist group, and people like Al Capone definitely weren’t. Democrats Al Smith and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were Wets, and FDR championed the cause after becoming president, as a way to boost the economy.

On December 5, 1933, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Utah voted for ratification of the 21st Amendment, making it official.

“The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed,” is the first part of the 21st Amendment. These words effectively ended Prohibition.

]]>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/01/happy-birthday-kind-of-to-the-18th-amendment/feed/018th Amendment: Prohibition of Intoxicating Liquorshttp://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/02/18th-amendment-prohibition-2/
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/02/18th-amendment-prohibition-2/#respondTue, 18 Feb 2014 10:30:19 +0000http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/?p=31339As part of the National Constitution Center’s 27 Amendments (In 27 Days) project, each day we will look at a constitutional amendment. Through partnerships with leading scholars and universities, government agencies, media outlets, and more, the National Constitution Center will profile one amendment each day throughout the month of February.

Full Text of the 18th Amendment

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Synopsis:

The “noble experiment” of Prohibition was instituted by this amendment in 1919, only to be repealed 14 years later by the 21st amendment.

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Note: Words in italics indicate provisions that were later dropped from the Constitution.

Synopsis:

The “noble experiment” of Prohibition was instituted by this amendment, only to be repealed 14 years later by the 21st amendment. Source: U.S. Senate

Interpretation:

Ratified on January 16, 1919, the Eighteenth Amendment prohibited the making, transporting, and selling of alcoholic beverages. Adopted at the urging of a national temperance movement, proponents believed that the use of alcohol was reckless and destructive and that prohibition would reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, decrease the need for welfare and prisons, and improve the health of all Americans. During prohibition, it is estimated that alcohol consumption and alcohol related deaths declined dramatically.

But prohibition had other, more negative consequences. The amendment drove the lucrative alcohol business underground, giving rise to a large and pervasive black market. In addition, prohibition encouraged disrespect for the law and strengthened organized crime. Prohibition came to an end with the ratification of Amendment XXI on December 5, 1933. Source: Annenberg Classroom

]]>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/12/18th-amendment-prohibition/feed/0Update: Pennsylvania’s historic vote to end booze controlhttp://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/03/update-pennsylvanias-historic-vote-to-end-booze-control/
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/03/update-pennsylvanias-historic-vote-to-end-booze-control/#respondFri, 22 Mar 2013 13:48:17 +0000http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/?p=23826Late on Thursday night, Pennsylvania’ House of Representatives approved a law to end the state’s Prohibition-era monopoly on alcohol sales.

Pennsylvania and Utah are the only two states that have kept monopolies on the sales of beer, wine, and spirits in the decades after the 18th Amendment was repealed and Prohibition ended in 1933.

The law passed on party lines, with most Republicans voting for it, while Democrats were united in their opposition.

Democratic leaders in the state senate have asked for 30 to 60 days of additional hearings and have said revisions are expected before, or if, the law comes up for a vote on the Senate floor.

The complicated resolution will privatize sales to consumers, taking away much of the power from the state’s Liquor Control Board, one of the biggest buyers of booze in the world.

In its current form, the law would require the Liquor Control Board to sell most of its proprietary state stores to private interests, with people who have dedicated beer distributorships getting the first chance to buy licenses. Grocery stores would be able to sell wine, though probably not beer, and big-box stores and pharmacies would sell wine, with limited beer sales.

Currently, Pennsylvania consumers need to travel to specially designated state-controlled stores to buy wine and spirits, with limited amounts of beer sold at bars, restaurants, and a handful of grocery stores. Cases of beer can only be sold by select beer distributors.

The law’s future in the Pennsylvania Senate is far from certain, as a united coalition of unions, social conservatives, drunk-driving opponents, and Democratic lawmakers oppose it for various reasons.

On Thursday, interests representing the beer industry seemed split on the bill.

Historically, that coalition has been very successful in articulating its points and rallying opposition across political and social lines.

The supporters of the liquor privatization law include Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett and many Republicans, tea party members, and fiscal conservatives. The state’s voters also have approved, in various polls, moves to allow liquor sales at retail and convenience stores, like many other states, and more products in more stores.

But Corbett’s powerful predecessors lost the booze battle in previous years to a fight that has its roots in the second term of former Governor Gifford Pinchot in 1933.

Corbett and privatization supporters hope to realize $800 million from the sales of liquor and beer sales licenses. The money would go into the state’s education budget.

Privatization opponents will also point to the struggles of another state, Washington, which recently ended its Prohibition-era battle over liquor.

In November 2011, Washington voters decided in a referendum to end its Pennsylvania-style liquor system. Prices were higher for hard liquor after privatization, reports a local newspaper as of January 2013, because of taxes that were tacked onto the law.

Taxes aren’t currently part of Pennsylvania’s proposed law, except that the state will continue to levy an 18 percent Johnstown Flood Tax on liquor products, which dates back to 1936.

Editor’s Note: If you are in the Philadelphia area in the next few weeks, check out the National Constitution Center’s acclaimed feature exhibition, American Spirits: The Rise And Fall Of Prohibition, on view through April 28. For more info, go to prohibition.constitutioncenter.org.

]]>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/03/update-pennsylvanias-historic-vote-to-end-booze-control/feed/0Pennsylvania close to historic vote on Prohibition-era liquor lawshttp://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/03/pennsylvania-close-to-historic-vote-on-prohibition-era-liquor-laws/
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/03/pennsylvania-close-to-historic-vote-on-prohibition-era-liquor-laws/#respondThu, 21 Mar 2013 14:15:41 +0000http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/?p=23776Pennsylvania lawmakers will vote Thursday afternoon on ending restrictive liquor laws that date back to 1933, but the Prohibition-era booze battle is far from over.

Pennsylvania and Utah are the only two states that kept monopolies on the sales of beer, wine, and spirits in the decades after the 18th Amendment was repealed and Prohibition ended.

The state’s House of Representatives will hold a vote on a complicated resolution to privatize sales to consumers, which in itself is a first for the Commonwealth. That would take away much of the power from the state’s Liquor Control Board, one of the biggest buyers of booze in the world.

In its current form, the law would require the Liquor Control Board to sell most of its proprietary state stores to private interests, with people who have dedicated beer distributorships getting the first chance to buy licenses. Grocery stores would be able to sell wine, though probably not beer, and big-box stores and pharmacies would sell wine, with limited beer sales.

Currently, Pennsylvania consumers need to travel to specially designated state-controlled stores to buy wine and spirits, with limited amounts of beer sold at bars, restaurants, and a handful of grocery stores. Cases of beer can only be sold by select beer distributors.

If the resolution is passed by a majority of the Republican-controlled House on Thursday afternoon, it moves onto the state Senate on April 9, where it will likely be rewritten.

The law’s future in the Pennsylvania Senate is far from certain, as a united coalition of unions, social conservatives, drunk-driving opponents, beer brewers, and Democratic lawmakers oppose it for various reasons.

Historically, that coalition has been very successful in articulating its points and rallying opposition across political and social lines.

The supporters of the liquor privatization law include Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett and many Republicans, tea party members, and fiscal conservatives. The state’s voters also have approved, in various polls, moves to allow liquor sales at retail and convenience stores, like many other states, and more products in more stores.

But Corbett’s powerful predecessors lost the booze battle in previous years to a fight that has its roots in the second term of former Governor Gifford Pinchot in 1933.

As a vocal “dry” in late 1933, Pinchot used his position as governor to make sure the state’s liquor system made buying booze difficult. Private competition was the evil that Pinchot really feared, because of the potential for political corruption.

In the past, the liberal-conservative alliance defeated efforts to privatize liquor by two powerhouse Republican governors, Dick Thornburgh and Tom Ridge. Ridge was the last to tackle privatization, in 1997, until Corbett took office.

Currently, the board’s critics point to the same two issues that Pinchot talked about in 1934: First, that consumers are paying too much for beer, wine, and liquor in Pennsylvania; and second, that they have access to fewer products.

The board’s counterclaim is that its system is one of the largest bulk buyers of liquor in the world, and it passes those savings on to consumers. And the state has changed its laws in recent years to extend store hours and offer some products at grocery stores and other outlets.

The board’s supporters also point to maintaining union rather than private-sector jobs, the board’s ability to control responsible access to liquor, its ability to protect the long-time investment of beer distributors in the system, and the constant flow of revenue from the board to taxpayers as benefits of the traditional system.

Corbett and privatization supporters hope to realize $800 million from the sales of liquor and beer sales licenses. The money would go into the state’s education budget.

Privatization opponents will also point to the struggles of another state, Washington, which recently ended its Prohibition-era battle over liquor.

In November 2011, Washington voters decided in a referendum to end its Pennsylvania-style liquor system. Prices were higher for hard liquor after privatization, reports a local newspaper as of January 2013, because of taxes that were tacked onto the law.

Taxes aren’t currently part of Pennsylvania’s proposed law, except that the state will continue to levy an 18 percent Johnstown Flood Tax on liquor products, which dates back to 1936.

Editor’s Note: If you are in the Philadelphia area in the next few weeks, check out the National Constitution Center’s acclaimed feature exhibition, American Spirits: The Rise And Fall Of Prohibition, on view through April 28. For more info, go to prohibition.constitutioncenter.org.

The competition, held at the Stratus Rooftop Lounge at the Hotel Monaco, featured mixologists from Square 1682 at the Hotel Palomar, XIX at the Hyatt at the Bellevue, Amuse Bar at the Le Meridien, and 10 Arts Lounge at The Ritz-Carlton.

Nate Churchill of XIX won “Judge Favorite” with his Orange Blossom. Stephen Diaz of 10 Arts Lounge won “Guest Favorite” with his Red Fizz Charleston. Just in time for the weekend, here’s a look at the winning recipes: